17
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to review current literatures about the key issues around m- government and participation areas within the context of developing countries. Firstly, it
begins with the concept of e-government and m-government. Secondly, it provides understanding about citizen participation, including the concept of good governance as
the background knowledge in understanding citizen participation. Thirdly, it discusses the link between m-government and participation. Fourthly, it describes information
systems IS success assessment model to analyse the case study. Lastly, it provides the summary of the whole chapter.
2.2 From E-Government to M-Government
As pointed out by many researchers Cilingir Kushchu 2004; El-Kiki et al. 2005; Kumar Sinha 2007; Mengistu et al. 2009, the concept of m-government is highly
related to e-government. It is argued to be the subset of e-government efforts. Thus, before explaining about m-government, it is essential to understand e-government as the
background of m-government initiatives, especially in a developing country context to make it relevant to the case study.
2.2.1 E-Government The fast growing of ICTs, especially internet and mobile technologies, has not only
revolutionized the way business operated but has also transformed the delivery mechanism of public services offered by government Trimi Sheng 2008. The new
concept of New Public Management NPM has been evoked to explain the phenomenon whereby government has tried to shift private sector operations
’ techniques to public sector operations, to be more responsive to the
public’s needs and to improve its functions in terms of cost, service and national development society
goals, including by the ICTs exploitation Bovaird 2007; Heeks 2013. ICTs are deemed to possess catalytic features to transform government capabilities to improve services
provision to and engaging with citizens as well as improving the public services quality,
18
which is now widely known as e-government Bekkers 2003; Chan et al. 2003; Lee et al. 2005; Trimi Sheng 2008; Chan et al. 2008.
The World Bank 2011 stresses e-government as the use of ICT which transforms government relationships with citizens, businesses, andor other government institutions
in order to promote citizen empowerment; enhance service delivery; and increase transparency, accountability, and government efficiency. Thus, ultimately there are two
main transformation areas or objectives of e-government, internal operations-focused i.e. processes in government activities and external services-focused e.g. delivering
online services, enhancing citizen participation Basu 2004; Ndou 2004; Heeks 2013. According to Heeks 2013, e-government can be classified based on its segment-served
into government-to-government G2G, government-to-business G2B, government-to- citizens G2C, and government-to-non-profits G2N which results four application
domains for e-government as seen in Figure 1. In addition to this classification, some researchers also add government-to-employee G2E Kim et al. 2004; Amailef Lu
2008.
Figure 1 Domains for E-Government Systems Heeks 2013
As depicted in Figure 1, there are four domains of e-government: e-administration, e- services, e-citizens, and e-society. According to Heeks 2001, e-administration focuses
on the improvement of internal processesworkings of public sector, including cutting cost, managing performance, etc. E-services aim to improve public services delivery,
19
particularly dealing with government relationship with its service consumers i.e. citizens as customers and businesses. E-citizens focuses on connecting citizens,
particularly dealing with the government-citizens relationship where citizens are seen as stakeholders from whom government derives its legitimacy, including talking to citizens
and listening to citizens initiatives. E-society addresses building external interactions, particularly dealing with the relationship between government and other institutions i.e.
other government institutions, private sectors, non-profit, and community organisations.
E-Government in Developing Countries It is a well-acknowledged fact that e-government adoption in developing countries is
increasing even though it is still lagging behind that in developed countries. It is still regarded as an answer to the problems faced by the government in serving their
constituencies efficiently and effectively i.e. resource constraint in delivering services to citizens and improving their operations Kumar Best 2006. Furthermore, it is also
believed to be a good enabling tool in addressing some key challenges for future growth potential and entering the global economy Ndou 2004. In developing countries, e-
government are seen as a ‘leapfrog’ technology that has potential to reach their national
development goals faster and more cheaply compared to previous traditional approaches Basu 2004.
As mentioned by many literatures, e-government may provide many significant benefits for developing countries. E-government has opportunities to promote efficiency,
improve service quality, reduce response times, increase citizen opportunities to strengthen their legitimacy, and emphasize reforms such as increased transparency,
accountability, citizen participation, trust building with the government, better processes of democratic governance, and affirm the commitment to good governance objectives
Bonham Seifert 2003; OECD 2003; Kumar Best 2006; Kumar Sinha 2007; Furuholt Wahid 2008. Overall, e-government may offer great potentials and
opportunities to improve governance, citizen satisfaction level, and democratization in term of greater citizen participation for developing countries Ndou 2004; Yanqing
2010. However, besides those benefits, e-government is considered failed to live up the
20
expectations Song Cornford 2006; Al-Thunibat et al. 2010. Since e-government commonly refers to online services through wired network and computer Kushchu
Kuscu 2003, there is therefore a challenge of fair access for all citizens, particularly for those in financial disadvantaged andor in rural areas. In view of this, mobile phone,
whose penetration is growing faster than that of landline connection, is deemed having opportunity to give wider access to citizens.
2.2.2 M-Government M-government is widely accepted as a new innovative way of e-government initiative
that may offer opportunities to more involve citizens and to improve the fundamental functions of government, particularly in providing good services to its citizens Kushchu
Kuscu 2003; Song 2005; Alrazooqi De Silva 2010. The massive adoption of m- government in many countries, particularly developing countries, is commonly driven
by major technological changes, including improvement to infrastructure and the range of mobile services available Kushchu Kuscu 2003; El-Kiki Lawrence 2006;
OECD ITU 2011. Those changes include the penetration of wireless and mobile technologies that are larger than the penetration of internet, the convergence of mobile
internetbroadband, and mobile-net applications and services, which, in turn, has created a phenomenon of “always-on” society Kushchu Kuscu 2003; Abanumy Mayhew
2005.
Generally, m-government is defined as the use of mobile wireless communication technology, devices and applications, i.e. Personal Digital Aassistance PDA, internet-
enabled mobile phones, mobile applications, etc., in governmental activities Kushchu Kuscu 2003; Östberg 2003 in El-Kiki et al. 2005; Song 2005. It is developed to
deliver personalised and context-aware services to its mobile citizens through wireless networks; provide multi-channel services delivery that support mobility and flexibility;
and enable anytime and anywhere access to government services Kwon 2004 in Nava Dávila 2005; Song 2005. Thus, as pointed by Nava Dávila 2005, the general
goals of m-government are to improve e-government services by adding mobile value i.e. personalization, timeliness, convenience, affordable, etc. and to integrate all e-
21
government services over wired and wireless internet that can be accessed anywhere and anytime.
M-Government Categorisations Similar to e-government, m-government is classified into four types of services as seen
in Figure 2.
Figure 2 M-Government Delivery Models Oui-Suk 2010 in OECD ITU 2011
As illustrated in Figure 2, each domain represents government interaction with different segment served. mG2B services accommodate information provision regarding
regulations, policies, applications for procurement, licensing, tax, etc. via mobile technologies. As for mG2G services, government transforms themselves into a
connected entity in order to be more effective and efficient in running their operations and providing services to citizens. In mG2E services, government provides training,
data access, and tools to the employees, especially for field staff who work in remote locations, in order to assist them in their daily operations, improve governmental
efficiencies and accountability, and improve public services quality. Lastly, mG2C enables citizens to interact with government with regards to services provision or citizen
involvement in government activities. Karadimas et al. 2008 also classify two types of m-government services based on its
content characteristic. The first one is known as push-service where citizens only get
22
information without any interactions, such as remindersalerts. The second one is characterized as interactive-service which allows two-way communication between
government and citizens, such as provision of suggestions to authority. Furthermore, according to its main purposes in the governmental sector, Zalesak 2003 in Al-Thunibat
et al. 2010 also divides m-government into four areas: mCommunication, mServices, mDemocracy, and mAdministration. First, mCommunication focuses on improving
communication between citizens and government to promote citizen encouragement, transparency, and accountability. Second, mServices include enabling transactional
interactions between government and citizens as part of public services provision. Third, mDemocracy concerns mobile voting and citizen inputcommentaspiration to political
decision-making to promote democratic participation. Fourth, mAdministration deals with services to improve internal operations El-Kiki Lawrence 2006.
In the case study context, LAPOR can be included into mG2C which provides interactive services for citizens to give complaints or aspirations related to national
development and public services provision. In term of area of services, LAPOR includes mCommunication which enables two-way communication with government
and mDemocracy which enables citizens participation in democratic processes, for example by giving inputs to government related to governmental activities.
Why M-Government? In term of the unique characteristics of going mobile, m-government can provide many
benefits and opportunities, not only for government but also for citizens, businesses and economic growth in general as summarised in Table 1. In developing countries context,
m-government is arguably able to extend e-government benefits in ruralremote areas since it makes public services more accessible Mengistu et al. 2009; Shareef et al.
2012. However, despite of those benefits, there are also some challenges that needs to be noted, such as security and privacy, responsiveness, trust, data actuality, and
infrastructure availability Welch Hinnant 2003; UN 2008; Scott et al. 2011; OECD ITU 2011.
23
Table 1 M-Government Benefits
24
2.3 Citizen Participation As argued by Punyaratabandhu 2004 and Rose 2004, the concept of citizen
participation in democratisation context cannot be separated from the concept of good governance. Thus, it is essential to get understanding about the broader theoretical
perspective by explaining good governance as a background of citizen participation, particularly in developing countries context.
2.3.1 Good Governance
The concept of good governance is increasingly used in many development literatures Punyaratabandhu 2004; UNESCAP 2009. Governance is defined as
‘a complex system of interactions among structures, traditions, functions responsibilities and processes
practices characterized by three key values of accountabilities, transparency and participation
’ Punyaratabandhu 2004:1 or ‘exercise of authority and control in a society in relation to the management of its resources for social and economic
development’ Schneider 1999:7.
As declared by Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, good governance is essential for prot
ecting citizens’ rights and advancing both economic and social development Kim et al. 2005 in Waheduzzaman 2008. Furthermore, good
governance assures that minorities’ views are taken into account; the most vulnerable
voices to be heard in decision-making, and corruption to be minimised UNESCAP 2009. In view of this, some scholars define good governance in a simple way as the
level of quality of government performance, good public engagement, and good outcomes Hye 2000 in Waheduzzaman 2008; OPM CIPFA 2004; Arko-cobbah
2006. The United Nations Development Program, Overseas Development Administration and
Asian Development Bank have all identified four main components of good governance which are considered major principles to ensure good governance: participation,
highlighting the citizen involvement in decision-making; accountability, referring to making public officials answerable for government behavior and responsive to public
’s needs; transparency, suggesting free flow of information; and rule of
law legitimacypredictability, impliying the existence of fair and impartially enforced
25
legal framework Turner Hulme 1997; Waheduzzaman 2007 in Waheduzzaman 2008; Uddin Joya 2007.
2.3.2 Participation as a Central Foundation of Good Governance
As mentioned in section 2.3.1, there are four major components of good governance which, conceptually, tend to be mutually supportive Waheduzzaman 2008. However,
as argued by Schneider 1999 and Rahman 2005 in Waheduzzaman 2008, citizen
participation is the central element government activities among other elements since it can assure more transparent, accountable, and predictable government for the citizens.
Citizen participation, as an essential right, is defined as the capabilities of citizens to help themselves in specifying their needs and discovering solutions, and act as the actors
instead of the objects of development Neras 2001 in Rose 2004; UN 2007. Some scholars define citizen participation by focusing on democratising and increasing the
quality and support for policy making by taking into account the potential contribution from citizens i.e. ideas, comments, solutions in national development Arnstein 1969;
Lourenço Costa 2007. It can take forms of public hearings, public survey, citizen review panel, or negotiated rule-making Arnstein 1969; Fiorino 1990. Meanwhile,
other scholars define it in term of citizen’s coproduction by interacting and negotiating
with government service providers Whitaker 1980; Pestoff 2009. In other words, citizen participation is also regarded as involvement in government’s daily processes in
providing public services. In this research, a broad view on participation is taken,
including both involvements in national development policy-making and in government’s services delivery, in order to make it relevant with the case study context.
UNUSCAP 2009 argues that public participation is a fundamental cornerstone of good governance. The concept of good governance should be realised as more than just
people-oriented, but it should be ‘owned by people’ Waheduzzaman 2008. In view of
this, it can be understood that the level of good governance can be improved through the high citizen participation in development programs and that active participation of
citizens, as one of stakeholders, in the decision-making process is becoming the hallmark of participatory governance Schneider 1999; Waheduzzaman 2008. Despite
of some debates on participatory governance denying the value of a people-centred
26
orientation in development in terms of efficiency, empowerment, and prevalent benefits Cleaver 2001, the conviction in the sense of encouraging citizens to provide their
opinion or deliberation on policy-making process is argued to be part of solution in improving sustainable development outcome Gbikpi Grote 2002.
2.4 M-Government and Participation
As explained in the previous sections, governments keep putting efforts to encourage participation since citizen participation is indeed imperative for the establishment of
democratisation and good governance as well as improving legitimacy of political processes and enabling public services improvement Sanford Rose 2007. In view of
this, governments need to provide communication channel that can be accessed easily, quickly and cheaply by wider citizens. Governments also need to ensure information
openness in order to meet public demands. If information is readily accessible and channel is well-established, it is possible for the public to discover more information
about policy decisions and governmental processes that interest them, which, in turn, may enable active participation in the processes UN 2007.
Given the fact that governments in most developing countries have faced pressures to govern in a more participatory way while the penetration of mobile technologies,
particularly mobile phone, is greater than that of internet; mobile phone can be used as an alternative channel for e-government initiatives which focus on participation
purposes also known as e-participation. Mobile phone provides new ways to meet good governance goals because of its mobile characteristics UN 2007. It can reach
further to the marginalised populations so they can easily interact with the government, quickly provide feedbacks and aspirations, and actively participate in decision-making
and other governmental activities in cost effective manner. Mobile device that is becoming common in daily life makes citizens easier and faster in providing opinions,
ideas, and other inputs to government just in their fingertips. Those inputs then can be used to monitor and control national development programs as well as to improve the
quality of public services.
27
Characterising Participation Level of M-Government Some e-Participation stage models can be used to know participation level of m-
government initiative. Generally, those models, as summarised in Table 2, have the same underlying concept but slightly different number of levels.
Table 2 The Ladder of e-Participation Maturity Summary OECD 2001; UN 2005; Heeks 2013a
1. Stage 0 and Stage 1: Informing As depicted in Table 2, all models have the same concept which is
informationinforming stage. This level refers to one-way relationship between
government and citizens where government plays an active role in producing and disseminating information for use by citizens, such as through static fact websites,
mobile application or SMS. In other words, the focus of this level is to enable participation through ICT Macintosh 2004.
2. Stage 2: ConsultingInteracting This stage highlights two-way interaction with the involvement of citizens in
discussions about particular topics or public decisions with decision makers. In other words, government encourages active interaction from citizens in online discussions
where government defines the issues, sets the questions, manages the processes, and invites citizens to contribute their viewsopinions. Thus, this level emphasises on
engaging citizens to governmental activities through ICT Macintosh 2004. For example, citizens give general commentssuggestions about particular policy, public
dialog sessions, public opinion survey or online group discussions.
28
3. Stage 3: Decision Making In the third stage, each framework has different name but with the same meaning, which
is a partnership-based relation between citizens and government where citizens are actively engaged in defining the content and process of policy-making. In other words,
citizens are collectively given the right to make decision-making and the government takes citizens’ input into decision-making. Citizens is deemed have equal standing in
setting agenda, suggest policy options and shaping the policy dialog. Thus, this level
focuses on empowering citizens to actively participate in governmental activities Macintosh 2004.
For example, citizens’ juries, consensus conference, etc. In order to measure the state of participation of m-government, this study focuses on
three elements obtained from several literatures which are: policies and regulations to know how m-government for participation is legally well-supported, ICT deployment to
assess how m-government for participation is technically facilitated, and applications and services
to measure to what extent citizens are being engaged as shown in Table 3.
29
Table 3 Characterising Participation Level adapted from Macintosh 2004; Ferguson et al. 2006 in Veenstra et al. 2011; Bannister 2007; Li Bernoff 2008; Albrecht et al. 2008; Loukis Xenakis
2008; Islam 2008; Maranny 2011; UNDESA 2013
30
2.5 Evaluating IS Success and Citizens Perceived Benefits
Kategori